The Bible Controversy 7

Psalm 12:6-7 is correctly translated in the King James, but became increasingly incorrectly translated after Youngs “literal” version

The Bible is inspired and preserved letter for letter by God.

Many statements of faith for ministries and churches are deliberately worded to conceal that the Christian involved does not believe the Bible is inerrant and inspired by God.

While a few manuscripts may have copyists errors, we can still determine the overall correct reading by examining large numbers of them we can

This was done previously and forms the family of manuscripts known as the Textus Receptus

Modern Bibles are translated entirely from “The oldest and best manuscripts”

The “oldest and best manuscripts” actually date from 1881, and are the work of Wescott and Hort, men who denied most of the fundamentals of the faith and did not believe in the Bible as inspired.

Wescott and Hort used mostly Codex Vaticanus, and where Vaticanus was “unsure” (or quite simply, didn’t have the book, verse or chapter – which often is the case) they had to resort to Codex Sinaiicus

Codex Sinaiticus was found in St. Catherine’s Monastary by Count Tischendorf, who was desperately searching for an old manuscript – ANY old manuscript – which differed from the Textus Receptus

A Bible artifact forger (Constantinus Simonides) stepped forward and admitted to forging Sinaiticus early on in his manuscript career, and described it as “clumsy”. While his confesion was ignored, it ended up costing him a great deal of money as from then on nobody would buy any more artifacts from him. He had nothing to gain and everything to lose with his confession.

Tischendorf described Codex Sinaiticus as “highly unreliable.

Count Tischendorf was a man who denied the inerrancy of the Bible and the Godhood of Jesus Christ

Sinaiticus shows major sings of editing, or correcting if it is a modern forgery.

The Scenarios presented for any presumed editing of the Syrian Manuscripts is simply ridiculous, and falls apart under any kind of logical examination.

The supposed editing of the Syrian manuscripts suppose that they are edited over a massive geographical area all at once, by “Pious Scribes”. How did these “Pious Scribes” manage to get all the manuscripts to say exactly the same thing, over a massive geographical area?

There is absolutely no proof for any editing of the Syrian family of manuscripts

There is overwhelming evidence for massive editing of Codex Vaticanus, and Codex Sinaiticus.

The critics claim that the Syrian family did not exist before AD 300 – but then turn around and insist they were “heavily edited” by the year AD 350 – again, without any proof to the contrary.

The translating Committee for the RV was instructed not to alter the text, or use any other manuscripts other than the Textus Receptus. Their very first act was to select Wescott & Hort’s new “critical” Greek Manuscript, compiled from painstaking comparison of two flawed and heavily edited texts, and lots of guesswork

The transdlating committee was instructed not to make any deletions from the text. They promptly made hundreds.

The translating committee was instructed only to replace outdated words. Instead, they made literally tens of thousands of changes to the translation.

Textual Critics insist that no verses from the Syrian texts can be found in the Early Christian authors, the so called early church fathers. In reality, there are tens of thousands.

When questioned, the critics insist that this means you cannot find the entire text of the Syrian New Testament in any one Early Christian Author. This is misleading, as you can’t find the entire text of the New Testament in its entirety in the complete bulk of the Early Christian Writers, let alone any one. By their standards, we would have to reject the entire New Testament.

Their own standards are not consistent, as they accept any fragment of any verse in paraphrase as being of the Alexandrian family and therefore proof – but require the entire text of the New Testament from only one Early Christian author.

Probing question #1 – Why would you oppose the preservation and inspiration of the Bible?

Probing question #2 – Is it right to use the philosophy of lost pagans to interpret the Holy Scriptures

Probing Question #3 – Why would we let a man who admittedly was using pagan methods to interpret Holy Scriptures determine what words and verses belong in the Bible?

Probing Question #4 – Why do we even consider it okay that Origen removed words and entire verses from the Bible when he wrote up his master Greek text? Doesn’t the Bible pronounce damnation upon anyone who removes words from or adds words to the Holy Bible? Shouldn’t we be furious that unholy hands had dared tamper with the Bible?

Probing Question #5 – With all of the deficiencies, changes, emendations and editings of Vaticanus, why did seemingly intelligent men accept this manuscript as fitting to use to translate for our modern Bibles? Isn’t this editing (which we can obviously see happened) the very thing the so-called Scholars rejected the Textus Receptus for – the texts the churches have always used until 150 years ago, and has NO evidence of tampering???

Probing Question#6 – If I take every course at Tennessee Temple University on Greek and Hebrew they offer, does that automatically give me, a man, the right to decide what words should be in the Bible (a book written and dictated letter for letter by God) or not? Isn’t the Bible God’s word, and doesn’t He warn of dire consequences for anyone willing to tamper with it? Does fallen men have the right, based upon a few hundred hours of sitting in a chair, scribbling notes, listening to lectures, and occaisionally raising your hand and taking a few tests, to decide what words belong in the Bible (a book written by the infallable Creator of the Universe)?

Probing Question #7 – Why would you want to treat the Bible like it is any other book? Isn’t it the inspired, inerrant word of God

Probing Question #8 – if you believe the Bible has errors in it… doesn’t that mean you’re lying when you say you believe in the inspred, inerrant word of God???

Probing Question #9 – when we already know the early Coptic and Gnostics were riddled with heresy, why would you prefer their heavily edited Bible texts over the ones you assume have been edited by the Bible-believing Christians who were suffering and dying for their faith?

Probing Question #10 – Why was no attempt made to disprove Simonides’ claim to have forged Sinaiticus? was it because Tischendorf feared they couldn’t disprove it? Or was it because he suspected it was true all along?

Probing Question #11 – There’s no proof of any “editing” of the Greek Recieved Text around 250 AD. How can you continue to believe one took place when all the evidence for editing points rather to your preferred manuscripts, the Alexandrian family?

One of the points we raised yesterday was that they claim you cannot find any quotations from the Syrian Manuscripts in the early Christian writings. After Dean John Burgon compiled tens of thousands of quotes from the pre-nicean Christian writers, they mocked, disparaged and belittled him.

After others began reproducing the same results, a hasty huddle must have been called – because many of those writings are now omitted from published works of the “Early Church Fathers”, or changed to reflect the Alexandrian families. They also hastily warn in their “Foreword from the Author” that the early christian authors manuscripts were “edited many times to reflect desired readings”.

What does that mean? “When you see something that proves the Alexandrian family, that’s proof, but if it’s reflecting the Syrian, then it’s ‘edited'”.

If the Byzantine readings now summarily dismissed in the early Fathers were legitimately included, the Fathers’ overall text would be seen to be far more ‘Byzantine’ than current scholarly opinion claims. This was Burgon’s original contention, which was dismissed out of hand, due to his use of ‘uncritical’ editions of the Fathers. Current ‘critical’ editions, however, follow the above-mentioned practice of eliminating distinctive Byzantine readings where unconfirmed by direct comment. Were this not so, Burgon’s assertion might find contemporary corroboration” (Maurice Robinson, “The Case for the Byzantine Textform: A New Approach to ‘Majority Text’ Theory,” Southeastern Regional Meeting, Evangelical Theological Society, at Toccoa Falls College, March 8-9, 1991)

Now we begin to move onto a major area that’s not being questioned or discussed – and I think it’s key to WHY this is happening.

When we start looking into what verses are edited, and what subjects they are, we start to discern something.

It’s fairly easy to prove salvation by faith alone, the KEY Christian doctrine – from the King James Bible. It’s much harder from the modern mis-translations.

It’s fairly easy to prove the Trinity from the King James Bible. It’s much harder from the modern mis-translations.

It’s rarly easy to prove the deity of Christ from the King James Bible. It’s much harder from the modern mis-translations.

It’s fairly easy to prove eternal security from the King James Bible. It’s much harder from the modern mis-translations.

It’s fairly easy to show the importance of the shed blood of Jesus Christ from the King James Bible. It’s much harder from the modern mis-translations.

It’s fairly easy to prove eternal suffering in a literal Hell forever for the unsaved from the King James Bible. It’s much harder from the modern mis-translations.

Wescott and Hort did not believe in any of these doctrines. I’m fairly sure they believe in a literal Hell now. After all, they’ve been there for around eighty years or so. Guaranteed, unless they repented of these heresies prior to their deaths – and I’m hoping they did so. If you’ve ever contemplated the literal reality of Hell for more than a second, you’ve realized by now the horror of it.

Let’s look at some verses supporting these doctrines. If I can’t document any changes to these verses, then I’ll drop mmy King James Only stance and start using modern translations. On the other hand, if I can prove my theory, then you need to consider abandoning modern per-versions and using only the King James Bible.

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1 (KJV)

no change.

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. John 1:14 (KJV)

14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. John 1:14 (ESV)

begotten is removed.

18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God. John 5:18 (KJV)

no change.

24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. John 8:24 (KJV)

24 For this reason I said to you that death will overtake you in your sins: for if you have not faith that I am he, death will come to you while you are in your sins. John 8:24 (BBE)

58 Jesus said to them, Truly I say to you, Before Abraham came into being, I am. John 8:58 (BBE)

The emphatic repetition is removed.

30 I and my Father are one. 31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. John 10:30-33 (KJV)

29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all. No one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. 30 The Father and I are one.” John 10:29-30 (HCSB)

I and the Father are one. (NIV)

“My Father” becomes “the father”. not too tremendous, but the repetition of the Scripture is now removed, weakening the claim. A heretic here could claim that Jesus Christ now is just a man, claiming deity through personal relationship. and indeed, that’s the contention of some heretics.

28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. John 20:28 (KJV)

28 “My Lord and my God!” Thomas exclaimed. John 20:28 (NLT)

The NLT translation here is questionable, as it seems like Thomas is expressing disbelief, with a blasphemous “OMG!” – rather than with a declaration of Christ’s deity, as even the NIV portrays.

Nothing major yet, although some very questionable translations.

9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. Colossians 2:9 (KJV)

9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form (NIV)

9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, Colossians 2:9 (ESV)

9 For in him all the wealth of God’s being has a living form, Colossians 2:9 (BBE)

9 For in Christ lives all the fullness of God in a human body. Colossians 2:9 (NLT)

Uh…. take your time and read those. Literally, it’s taking one key verse affirming the Trinity, and cutting ithe Trinity itself out of the verse. This is a heresy. The text clearly says θεότης, Godness in completeness. To describe it, as the Bible clearly states the doctrines of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, the King James translators know to translate it “Godness” would be misleading. So they chose to use Godhead, to show all three reside in one body, in a way we cannot understand.

Yes, it’s a major issue. So far, we’ve seen the actions of the Bible translators have been to downplay the deity of Christ – but now we’re dealing with the Trinity! This is something Wescott and Hort had a problem with. Not surprisingly, it gets removed.

Think it’s a fluke? Get your Bibles. You’re about to be completely shocked at what you see next. Modern translations literally turn the next verse around to say the EXACT OPPOSITE of what the Bible really says.

5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Philippians 2:5-8 (KJV)

You’re seen this verse before, right? Read it out loud several times, making sure you pay attention to the wording. “thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” Thats what it says, right? The Greek text says Isos, equal, same as, equality. Let’s see what heresy (yes, heresy) the modern versions advocate.

6 who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God as something to be used for His own advantage. Philippians 2:6 (HCSB)

6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, Philippians 2:6 (ESV)

6 Though he was God, he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to. Philippians 2:6 (NLT)

6 who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped, Philippians 2:6 (ASV)

6 who, being in the very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped. (NIV)

WHAT??? That’s a heresy. The Bible says he thought it not robbery to be equal with God. The modern perversions claim he did not consider it to be something to be grasped. Now, you tell me if you think those two sentences are exactly the same? They’re not. One says He was equal to God, the other says he wasn’t.

the King James presents an awesome portayal of the gentleness and humility of the King of Kings, Emmanuel, God with us, the LORD Jesus Christ, second person of the trinity.

The modern versions claim instead he was just a man who knew he couldn’t be God, and didn’t even try.

Ready for the big shocker?

14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Isaiah 7:14 (KJV)

23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Matthew 1:23 (KJV)

23 See, the virgin will become pregnant and give birth to a son, and they will name Him Immanuel, which is translated “God is with us.” Matthew 1:23 (HCSB)

The translation of Immanu-El as “God with us” shows a statement of Christ’s eternal sonship. Translating it to “God is with us” turns it rather to being a standard Jewish name, reflecting the greatness of God. In addition, the HCSB downplays the virgin birth.

16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. 1 Timothy 3:16 (KJV)

16 And most certainly, the mystery of godliness is great: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory. 1 Timothy 3:16 (HCSB)

16 Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory. 1 Timothy 3:16 (ESV)

16 And without argument, great is the secret of religion: He who was seen in the flesh, who was given God’s approval in the spirit, was seen by the angels, of whom the good news was given among the nations, in whom the world had faith, who was taken up in glory. 1 Timothy 3:16 (BBE)

16 Without question, this is the great mystery of our faith: Christ was revealed in a human body and vindicated by the Spirit. He was seen by angels and announced to the nations. He was believed in throughout the world and taken to heaven in glory. 1 Timothy 3:16 (NLT)

16 The mystery that gives us our reverence for God is acknowledged to be great: He appeared in his human nature, was approved by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was announced throughout the nations, was believed in the world, and was taken to heaven in glory. 1 Timothy 3:16 (GW)

16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; He who was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the spirit, Seen of angels, Preached among the nations, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory. 1 Timothy 3:16 (ASV)

16 Beyond all question, the mystery of Godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory. 1 Timothy 3:16 (NIV)

The Greek manuscripts, the Syrian family, all say Theos Ephanerothe – God was manifested. Not Autos Ephanerothe – he was manifested.

Not a big deal? I’m manifest in the flesh. So are you. But to say God was manifest in the Flesh is a HUGE deal. It portrays what we learned in Seminary is called the Hypostatic union – Jesus Christ is Fully God, and Fully Man. He did not become so at His Baptism – he always WAS God.

Is this a major problem? It should be. I’d be VERY careful of any Bible that deliberately weakens doctrine.

As you’ll see over the next couple of weeks, this is the tip of the iceberg.

“you’re paranoid, and imagining conspiraciies where there are none!”

Am I? Why these verses? Why not some of the incidental ones?

29 And as they departed from Jericho, a great multitude followed him. Matthew 20:29 (KJV)

29 As they were leaving Jericho, a large crowd followed Him. Matthew 20:29 (HCSB)

29 And as they went out of Jericho, a great crowd followed him. Matthew 20:29 (ESV)

Close to identical. But we’ve seen that the modern versions weaken the deity of Christ, and deny the Trinity. Should you be studying a bible that denies the Trinity and call it God’s word? We decry the New World Translation for doing it, but say NOTHING about the modern versions which all do exactly the same thing!!!

“‘They left John 1 alone…”

Yes, because so many Christians have memorized it, and discerning Christians look at it first to see if a Bible advocates heresy. If they hide it, you’ll never notice it! did you notice the changes in Colossians, Phillipians and 1 Timothy? Most Christians don’t look at those.

My first glance at a new Bible is Acts 8:36-38. Then I turn to 1 John 5:6-7.

6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. 1 John 5:6-8 (KJV)

read it carefully. Nowe lets look at the modern perversions.

6 Jesus Christ—He is the One who came by water and blood, not by water only, but by water and by blood. And the Spirit is the One who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood—and these three are in agreement. 1 John 5:6-8 (HCSB)

Does that even say remotely the same thing? Look again.

6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. 1 John 5:6-8 (KJV)

6 Jesus Christ—He is the One who came by water and blood, not by water only, but by water and by blood. And the Spirit is the One who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood—and these three are in agreement. 1 John 5:6-8 (HCSB)

Uh…. that’s a little shocking. Wheres verse 8??? They chopped off most of verse 7, and stuck on verse 8 – and you PROBABLY NEVER NOTICED. Let’s look at more translations.

6 This is he who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ; not by the water only but by the water and the blood. And the Spirit is the one who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree. 1 John 5:6-8 (ESV)

6 This is he who came by water and by blood, Jesus Christ; not by water only but by water and by blood. 7 And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is true. 8 There are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood: and all three are in agreement. 1 John 5:6-8 (BBE)

The BBE chops out even more of the verse than the other popular versions! I’m sure even Satan was astonished! “Really??? We can get away with that???”

6 And Jesus Christ was revealed as God’s Son by his baptism in water and by shedding his blood on the cross—not by water only, but by water and blood. And the Spirit, who is truth, confirms it with his testimony. 7 So we have these three witnesses— 8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood—and all three agree. 1 John 5:6-8 (NLT)

And the NLT butchers the verses even more!!!

6 This Son of God is Jesus Christ, who came by water and blood. He didn’t come with water only, but with water and with blood. The Spirit is the one who verifies this, because the Spirit is the truth. 7 There are three witnesses: 8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood. These three witnesses agree. 1 John 5:6-8 (GW)

Astounding. Absolutely. And I’m not even CLOSE to being done! If I analyzed every change the perversions did, I could be writing for the next two years!

If you’re not shocked now, just wait at what else you see the perversions cut out.

Advertisements

Share this:

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

Author: philipdean2013

Seminary graduate with a Ba. in Theology/Pastoral Studies, Happily married, Independent Baptist. I can't keep silent about what I see going on in Christianity any longer!
Apostasy reigns around us, churches are sliding into worldiness, a whitewashed Gospel is preached everywhere...
"Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein. Jeremiah 6:16 (KJV)
So, I'm speaking out. ...Why aren't you???
View all posts by philipdean2013